Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is convinced that the media, Facebook, and the Government are in cahoots to steal money from you and start wars. (Source: Daily Mail)

Assange is convinced that Facebook is violating its users trust, passing a wealth of spy information to the U.S. government. He produced no documents to support his position, though. (Source: AP Photo)

Julian Assange still has plenty to say and most of it involves some sort of conspiracy

Now that he's in the spotlight, he's relishing the attention and opportunity to
air his thoughts on technology and what he perceives as a vast international
conspiracy, headed by the United States.

In an interview with Russia Today,
Russia's first all-digital TV network, Mr. Assange claims that when it comes to
the U.S., "We only released secret, classified, confidential material. We
didn’t have any top secret cables. The really embarrassing stuff, the really
serious stuff wasn’t in our collection to release. But it is still out there."

Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that
has ever been invented. Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database
about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their
locations and the communications with each other, their relatives, all sitting
within the United States, all accessible to US intelligence. Facebook, Google,
Yahoo – all these major US organizations have built-in interfaces for US
intelligence. It’s not a matter of serving a subpoena. They have an interface
that they have developed for US intelligence to use.

Now, is it the case that Facebook is actually run by US intelligence? No, it’s
not like that. It’s simply that US intelligence is able to bring to bear legal
and political pressure on them. And it’s costly for them to hand out records
one by one, so they have automated the process. Everyone should understand that
when they add their friends to Facebook, they are doing free work for United
States intelligence agencies in building this database for them.

On the topic of Libya Mr. Assange seems to have mixed thoughts, first
complaining of French, U.S., and British involvement, stating, "When
outside forces from very, very far-flung countries start to take an aggressive
role in a regional affair, then we have to look a bit more and say that what is
going on is not normal. So, what’s happening in Libya, for example, is not
normal."

He then turns around and complains that Britain is doing wrong by harboring the sons of
controversial leader Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, stating, "It’s an
example of true liberalism in the United Kingdom: everyone come here, and we’ll
protect you. On the other hand, there does seem to be a disconnect. Is it
really supporting free-speech activists like me who come to the UK? But, on the
other hand, it is supporting people like sons of Gaddafi."

He also complains about what he says is a profit-driven conspiracy at The
New York Times and his former ally turned foe, British newspaper Guardian.
He explains:

What they have done with this cable-cooking in this incredible
over-redaction of cables is they have pushed the right of the people to know to
the very, very edge. And what they are concerned about is any possible attack
on them.

But we have seen this sort of abuse of the material that we have provided
several times. The Guardian is the worst offender, but we saw it also by The
New York Times. The New York Times redacted a 62-page cable down to two
paragraphs. And this is completely against the agreement that we originally set
up with them on November 1, 2010. That agreement was that the only redactions
that should take place are to protect people's lives. There should be no other
redaction, not to protect reputation, not to protect The Guardian's profits,
but only to protect lives.

After a discussion of his possible extradition to Sweden to face sex crimes charges, and the possible effort by the U.S. to extradite him
to face trial on some sort of espionage charge, Mr. Assange turns back to his
old talking point -- conspiracy. He concludes:

One of the hopeful things that I’ve discovered is that nearly
every war that has started in the past 50 years has been a result of media
lies. The media could've stopped it if they had searched deep enough; if they
hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could've stopped it. But what does
that mean? Well, that means that basically populations don't like wars, and
populations have to be fooled into wars. Populations don't willingly, with open
eyes, go into a war. So if we have a good media environment, then we also have
a peaceful environment.

Let's just hope Facebook and the war-mongering media don't join forces.
Or then Mr. Assange might really lose some sleep.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Don't buy into this "gov't secrets". When Wikileaks revealed the information they found ... most of that the other countries ALREADY know about ... it's not like they revealed troop deployment locations, and location of secret compounds .... there's nothing like that in there.

It revealed America's relationships with other countries. I don't think it's all that secretive. We just don't know about it.

Everytime people get into this discussion people always refer back to "military sensitive documents". If you play it by the book, any dealings between Wall St. and Treasury are "gov't secrets" because revealing those infomation could change outcome of the stock market. That excuse can be used for anything .....

I don't agree with everything he does, but I also wouldn't mind knowing how the OUR gov't conducts things. We need whistleblowers and watchmen to make sure the people in power are kept in check!

Far too many use that term (sensitive) blindly. Albeit it is essentially and completely arbitrary.

The problem here is the method of information delivery, and how best to distribute this information amongst our fellow red, white, and blue blooded Americans, while excluding - well, why don't we join the bandwagon and use the label "terrorists." This much is blatantly obvious.

So who is to decide this threshold? Well, our system of choice dictates certain individuals or groups within our governmental security agencies decide for us.

Julian really does have noble intentions, and I'd like to think we as a people share those particular qualities.

Julian, AFAIK, is not employed by our federal government.

My problem Julian, is when one of these leaked "secrets" enables one of these "terrorists" to directly or most likely indirectly, infer and piece together certain data and ultimately use this information to directly or most likely indirectly EFF up my life or the life of someone I know or love.

That being said, let me lay any naivety to rest with respect to certain individuals or groups mentioned above; Moral and ethical lines are interpreted as fuzzy, while in practice, neither are.The bare fact that this controversy exists indicates that a solution is needed. How best to conceptualize and develop that solution, well, that's why our elected officials get paid the big bucks - News flash (@ politicians!). The citizens who have a genuine concern for the well being and legacy of this country would like you to focus your efforts on things like this, NOT these meaningless filler projects that appeal to the LCDs of our society. Please.

It is true that we, the USA, were lied into Iraq. NOTHING President Bush said about Iraq was true. The "conservatively speaking" 100 tons of WMD's, the biological warfare trailers, the "meeting" of Saddam's agents with al-Qaeda in Prague, the airliner model training camps, the uranium cake (I love chocolate cake) purchases, al-Qaeda being in Iraq before the invasion, it was all lies.

President Bush really should have been impeached. The Democrats simply didn't have the stomach for it. What this means is, in the future, we'll be lied into another war. Until there are real consequences for a President for lying the USA into wars, it will continue to happen the same way President Johnson lied to us about the second Gulf of Tonkin incident:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incide...

BTW, about Osama Bin Laden. If President Bush had not been focused on Iraq, if he had dropped the US Army Airborne into the eastern Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan, we would have killed OBL in late 2001, early 2002. We had to wait nearly 10 years to eliminate OBL.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

Before Sunday, the Republicans always had the edge regarding terrorism. After Sunday, that's all gone and they simply look incompetent.